As we have seen, Plato believes that justice is in the interest of those who are just. We have also seen, however, that Plato does not think that justice is good solely for its consequences; it is also good in itself, an intrinsic good. He shows this by arguing that justice is a component of the happy life. If the virtues were only an instrumental means to happiness, then they might fail to lead to happiness in other circumstances, and one might be able to achieve happiness with simply the appearance of virtue. But if virtue is the supreme constituent of happiness, then one could not be happy without being (genuinely) virtuous, and one could not be virtuous without being happy.
We have also seen that in the Republic, Plato divides the soul …show more content…
However, we might propose on his behalf that we can only speak of an action being just (or unjust) if we consider it in the broader context of a just city, i.e., we should hesitate to view just actions as simply those which traditional morality enjoins, or those which some authority deems just; instead we should view just actions as those which contribute to the justice of a just city. Plato gives us an example of an ideally just city in the construction of his "Republic"; and he argues that the justice of the city consists in all citizens "doing their own proper work". So the question whether social justice is a constituent of happiness can now be rephrased: is "doing one 's own proper work" in the context of a just city, a component of happiness? To answer this question we should ask: would "doing one 's own work" in such a city constitute a happy life? Could one achieve a happier life some other way?
Plato, of course, would answer these questions by showing that it is the city modeled on his "Republic" in which the citizens are happiest; in this city not only are they best able to achieve what they value, but they will also be best able to achieve psychic harmony. He clearly thinks that true happiness would consist in behaving justly in a just
We have also seen that in the Republic, Plato divides the soul …show more content…
However, we might propose on his behalf that we can only speak of an action being just (or unjust) if we consider it in the broader context of a just city, i.e., we should hesitate to view just actions as simply those which traditional morality enjoins, or those which some authority deems just; instead we should view just actions as those which contribute to the justice of a just city. Plato gives us an example of an ideally just city in the construction of his "Republic"; and he argues that the justice of the city consists in all citizens "doing their own proper work". So the question whether social justice is a constituent of happiness can now be rephrased: is "doing one 's own proper work" in the context of a just city, a component of happiness? To answer this question we should ask: would "doing one 's own work" in such a city constitute a happy life? Could one achieve a happier life some other way?
Plato, of course, would answer these questions by showing that it is the city modeled on his "Republic" in which the citizens are happiest; in this city not only are they best able to achieve what they value, but they will also be best able to achieve psychic harmony. He clearly thinks that true happiness would consist in behaving justly in a just